Jump to content

Panasonic LX3 vs Canon G10 vs Nikon P6000


Recommended Posts

My two most trusted review sites, dcresource.com and dpreview.com,

have reviewed the two serious contenders.

Frankly I was surprised by dpreview's mere Recommended rating for the G10,

after its quality was likened to medium format.

Additionally two professional photographers,

<A HREF="http://www.bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm">a Nikon partisan</A>

and

<A HREF="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pocket-battleships.shtml">a Canon partisan</A>

wrote interesting comparisons of these three cameras.

The P6000 seems to be the P&S of choice only for somebody who wants GPS.

<P>

For me the choice is clear: LX3.

I'm sick of shooting 4:3 and missing the sides of every scene,

and having images too tall for my widescreen monitor.

On the LX3 I can set 3:2 and switch to 4:3 if need be, or (more likely) 16:9 for panoramas.

Moreover the difference in performance is striking.

Shot to shot times for RAW are 1.7 seconds for the LX3, 2.5 for the G10.

In continuous mode the LX3 can shoot 3 frames of RAW at 1.89 fps, 2.4 times faster than the G10.

Autofocus speed is a consistent full-press .7 second on the LX3,

but varies from .5 to 1.2 second on the G10 (longer at telephoto, when it hunts).

The LX3 can take HD movies, the G10 cannot.

The principal downside is that power-on takes over 2 seconds on the LX3.

<P>

DPreview's <A HREF="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page9.asp">real world results</A>

are perhaps the most compelling argument,

especially insofar as 10 Mp images won't fill my SD card or computer as rapidly as 14 Mp.

The G10 is great in the lab, but apparently not so much on the street.

So am I missing anything important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill: I know you like the LX3. A few thing decide the G10 for me

 

E-TTL flash, I have a few Canon flash which I can use seamlessly with the G10 also wirelessly if I want

to. I also have a Metz 28 C which is small, takes AAA and really looks good on the G10.

 

140mm (equiv) on the long end vs 60mm on the LX3

 

Canon DPP compatible. I don't have any difference processing EOS RAW vs G10 RAW.

 

This is my preferences, others might not care about these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, agreed 60mm is a limitation, and Panasonic does not have a tele converter,

however 140mm really isn't that long (my daughter's FZ18 goes to ~450mm)

and a DSLR at high ISO would give better telephoto results and AF faster, anyway.

Thanks A.Novisto for reminding me, though.

 

The LX3 takes accessory flash, but I haven't looked into it.

I had one with my film SLR and hated it -- too much junk to carry around.

As you can tell from my website, I'm a daylight photographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bill, i'm with you on the lx3. it seems like the closest thing to the hi-end P&S everyone's been a-clamorin' about.apparently, the g10 is great at base ISO but not so great at 400 and over. that's great for landscapists, but for candid/street stuff, 24mm and 2.0 is a lot more appealing, and 60mm isnt so bad. now why can't nikon do something just as innovative? i think thom got it right when he said the p6000 would be better if it had a better lens. being able to use a nikon speedlite seems like the only reason to get that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sold my G10 after two weeks to buy the LX-3. Not that the G10 is not good. It's a great camera. It's strong, its ergonomics and menus are

superb, and it delivers good images. But it's a bit big, while the

LX-3 is pocketabl (though the protruding lens and the removable cap are a bit bulky in this regard.) But mostly I couldn't

resist f:2-2.8, 24 mm and «Leica glass». As fas as noise is concerned, I think the LX-3 is at least one stop better than the

G10, ie 640 ISO is acceptable, while the G10 is acceptable at 400. And since you have f:2 at 24 mm)

and 2.8 at 60 mm,

you don't need high ISO quite as often. So, it's kind of a double bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

You really are starting to sound like a Panasonic salesman. There is no over riding reason to get either, they are both similar IQ etc etc, it comes down to the finer points, size, gear integration, software, lens range etc. It all comes down to a personal choice lets leave it at that.

 

Oh if you want to convert your RAW Panasonic files in Adobes DNG Converter the files will be three times their original size, so you will fill up your computer much quicker with the Panasonic but not your SD card.

 

Take care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, thanks for the info on DNG. I've decided not to use it yet

because neither SilkyPix nor GIMP can saveAs DNG.

 

Nobody rebutted that in DPreview's real world results,

the wires in the blue-sky crop show jaggies in the LX3 but not in the G10 image.

Canon has better anti-aliasing in the Digic than in the Venus 4.

 

Actually the LX3 has a new system where all three form-factors are crops;

see the dpreview.com review. Do any DSLR models have this yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,

 

Adobe do say they hope to overcome the file problem that is confined to the Panasonic/Leica RAW files. You and I

talked about the DPreview's results before, I thought.

 

I read the words regarding the aspect ratio captures but it has to boil down to a 4x3 picture taken in full, then

cropped to either/and 3x2, or/and 16x9. I would argue that all DSLR's work like this, indeed all cameras, they

capture the whole then you crop, all Panasonic are doing is giving you two additional masks of the same picture

in camera. APS cameras did that with film too.

 

Take care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody can explain the "shooting format" thing a little better. Here is a quote from Luminous Landscape

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml):

 

==========================

 

The Panasonic LX3 uniquely offers three shooting formats 16:9, 3:2, and 4:3. These are quickly and easily set via

a switch on the lens barrel. This alone sets the LX3 apart from its competitors, and may be considered a real

plus by many photographers. And, unlike its predecessor the LX1, the change in aspect ratios is not achieved by

simply masking the sensor, but indeed focal length coverage is maintained. This differentiates the LX3 from other

cameras which simply do format masking, something that one can always emulate when cropping during post processing.

 

The advantage of this approach is shown in the image resolution resulting from each format's selection –

3968X2232 pixels with 16:9, 3648X2736 with 4:3, and 3776X2520 with 3:2. Choice of format therefore becomes an

esthetic decision, with 16:9 being suitable for landscape work, 3:2 for those that are comfortable with 35mm

aspect ratio. and 4:3 for folks who like something a bit less extreme, such as the popular 645 medium format format.

 

==============================

 

Cheers! Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

 

That means the LX3 has a 10.8 MP sensor, a 16:9 image gives an 8.8 MP image, a 3:4 gives 9.9 MP image and the 3:2 gives a 9.5 MP image, doesn't seem to me to be a "feature" it just seems like an in camera limitation, I would rather the 10.8 MP each time and crop it.

 

I am slow to accept "new" ideas unless I can see clear advantages, for all the wording the end result is the same, the LX3 has a 4:3 sensor, anything but a 4:3 image is a crop, however you do it, the LX3 seems to take the unusual route of cropping all three formats to never give you the resolution it could. That seems like a strange kind of progress.

 

Take care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, the LX3 lens diagonal isn't large enough to cover the corners of the sensor.

 

Tommy, at 60mm (equivalent) f/2.8 gives you pretty good back-of-subject blur

for portraits. I saw an example on a dpreview.com forum but can't locate it now.

The DCresource.com gallery has a picture of a tropical drink with pool background

in Hawaii -- very nice bokeh. I did the DOF math but threw away the answer.

 

DRW writer and ACR 5.2 just released with G10 and LX3 support!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the choice between the LX3 and the G10 was very simple to do: I held both at a camera store, and the G10 just feels and handles better in my hands. I need a P&S that is able to deliver good images up to ISO 400 (both the LX3 and the G10 do that), but I also need a camera that is robust and handles well.

 

The LX3 is well built and the interface is good, but with the G10, Canon went the extra bit to deliver a truly finished product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jay - The description shown on Luminous Landscape is correct. The LX3 provide 3 distinct shooting formats: 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9. The 35mm and HDTV formats are not merely crops of the 4:3 format as Scott suggested.<br>

    Shown below are shots in the 3 formats taken from the same position. Clearly you cannot get the 3:2 and 16:9 images by merely cropping the 4:3 image.<p>

<img src="http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/835/lx3formatsjm2.jpg">

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berg don't pick on me again, you know you will lose, again.

 

The LX3 has a 4:3 sensor, all pictures other than a 4:3 format picture have to be a crop, it should be a simple

as that, Panasonic decided to make it more complicated by not using a lens that could ever cover the entire

sensor so they have to crop the 4:3 image as well. All three formats the LX3 offers are crops of a 4:3.

 

"That means the LX3 has a 10.8 MP sensor, a 16:9 image gives an 8.8 MP image, a 3:4 gives 9.9 MP image and the

3:2 gives a 9.5 MP image"

 

The Hasselblad XPan did offer truly different panorama image options by making the negative bigger, digital

cameras can't, they are always limited to the size and dimensions of the sensor, I hadn't come across a

manufacturer who puts a 10.8 MP sensor in a camera and doesn't give you the ability to use it all in any

configuration though.

 

Take care, Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Berg:

 

That is what I needed to see. You did a nice job framing these shots to illustrate the point.

 

I don't know how Panasonic does it, but, I can see from your examples that the 3:2 and 16:9 formats are not crops

of the 4:3.

 

When I look at picture widths, there is information in the 3:2 and 16:9 formats that is not present in the 4:3

format (I counted the flower pots on the right and noted that the fence board (back left) was in relatively same

position in each photo).

 

Same goes for picture heights, there is info in the 4:3 and 3:2 that is not present in the 16:9 (so the 4:3 and

3:2 images are not crops of the 16:9).

 

Cheers! Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I was going by another review not the dpreview figures. According to DPReview the sensor is a 3:2 configuration of 11.3 mp. even so all three images are crops, again even the native 3:2. The highest pixel figure you can get from the 11.3 mp sensor is a 10 mp image, a crop of over 10%.

 

Like I said earlier, seems a strange kind of progress.

 

Sorry for getting the earlier figures wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott - I'm not picking on you, trust me, I just want to share information. What is there to win or lose? I'd challenge you to a bike race or a tennis game if winning was my motive. In any case, Panasonic's approach is correct and the only solution, from a technical point, to ensure that the proper field of view is achieved at a particular lens focal length.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...